Pension Design and Structure New Lessons from Behavioral Finance
|
|
- Rosanna Whitehead
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Utkas-Fm.qxd 27/5/04 3:24 PM Page iii Pension Design and Structure New Lessons from Behavioral Finance EDITED BY Olivia S. Mitchell and Stephen P. Utkus 1
2 Utkas-Fm.qxd 27/5/04 3:24 PM Page iv 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi São Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York Pension Research Council, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2004 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King s Lynn, Norfolk
3 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page 67 Chapter 4 Behavioral Portfolios: Hope for Riches and Protection from Poverty Meir Statman As the boom of the late 1990s gave way to the bust of the early 2000s, and defined benefit (DB) plans gave way to defined contribution (DC) plans, individual investors struggled to understand their responsibilities and look for help from employers, financial services companies, government entities, investment professionals, and academics. We argue in this chapter that behavioral portfolio theory offers a good description of investor behavior and a basis for good policy prescriptions. Behavioral portfolio theory is an alternative to mean variance portfolio theory, a theory that is founded on expected utility theory (Shefrin and Statman, 2000). Van Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) developed expected utility theory from Bernoulli utility theory, the principles of which are illustrated in the observation that most people prefer a sure $1 over a gamble with the same expected value, such as one that offers a 50 percent chance to win $2 and a 50 percent chance to win nothing. Expected utility theory says that the utility of money increases at a lower rate than its amount, as depicted in the concave Bernoulli utility function graphed in Figure 4-1. So, while the expected value of the gamble for $2 or nothing is equal to a sure $1, its expected utility is less than the utility of a sure $1. The observation that people generally prefer a sure $1 over a gamble with the same expected value has been offered as evidence that people are risk-averse. Expected utility theory and mean variance portfolio theory banished risk-seeking and gambling from theory, but gambling is easier to banish from theory than from real life. The Commission on the Review of National Policy toward gambling (1976) in Gambling in America describes the attempts of the Christian church to banish gambling in the early days of Christianity: Gambling was forbidden to early Christians, but an evasion of the code continued for centuries, extending often to the clergy itself. Constantinople, the seat of the Church, was also the 12th Century gambling capital of the world. (p. 5)
4 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page Meir Statman Dollars Figure 4-1. Bernoulli s utility function. Source: Lopes (1987). Utility Utility Dollars Figure 4-2. Friedman Savage s utility function. Source: Lopes (1987). Centuries later, the Dickenson Report, part of the deliberations leading to the 1934 Securities Act, said (Ellenberger and Mahar, 1973): It must always be recognized that the average man has an inherent instinct for gambling in some form or other. It has been recognized as a social evil, always inveighed against since early times. No method of combating it has ever been completely successful. The road to behavioral portfolio theory started more than a half century ago, when Friedman and Savage (1948) noted that hope for riches and protection from poverty share roles in our human behavior; people who buy lottery tickets often buy insurance policies as well. Consequently people are risk-seeking enough to buy lottery tickets in the concave middle portion of their utility function (see Figure 4-2), while they are risk-averse enough to buy insurance in the convex outer portions. Four years later, Markowitz wrote two papers that reflect two very different views of behavior. In one (1952b), he created mean variance theory, based on expected
5 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page 69 4 / Behavioral Portfolios 69 utility theory; in the other (1952a), he extended Friedman and Savage s insurance lottery framework. People in mean variance theory, unlike people in the insurance lottery framework, would never buy lottery tickets; they are always risk averse, never risk-seeking. Friedman and Savage observed that people buy lottery tickets because they aspire to reach higher social classes, whereas they buy insurance as protection against falling into lower social classes. Markowitz (1952b) finetuned the Friedman/Savage observation by noting that people aspire to move up from their current social class or customary wealth. So people with $10,000 might accept lottery-like odds in the hope of winning $1 million, and people with $1 million might accept lottery-like odds in the hope of winning $100 million (see Figure 4-3). Kahneman and Tversky (1979) extended this line of research into prospect theory, which describes the behavior of people who accept lottery-like odds when they are below their levels of aspiration, but reject such odds when they are above their levels of aspiration (Figure 4-4). Utility Dollars Figure 4-3. Markowitz s customary wealth utility theory. Source: Lopes (1987). Utility Losses Gains Figure 4-4. Kahneman and Tversky s prospect theory utility function. Source: Lopes (1987).
6 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page Meir Statman Prospect theory is different from expected utility theory and mean variance theory in a number of ways. First, while mean variance consumers choose among alternatives based on effect of outcomes on the levels of their final wealth, people in prospect theory choose based on the effect of outcomes on changes in their wealth, relative to their reference point. Markowitz s customary wealth is a common reference point. Second, while mean variance consumers are always risk-averse, people in prospect theory are risk-averse when changes in wealth are perceived as gains, but they are risk-seeking when all changes in wealth are perceived as losses. Third, mean variance consumers treat risk objectively, by its probabilities, but prospect theorists overweight small probabilities. Overweighting may cause people to be risk-seeking in the domain of gains, such as when they purchase lottery tickets, or it may cause them to be risk-averse in the domain of losses, such as when they purchase insurance against losses that have small probabilities, such as when they buy insurance against plane crash at the airport, just before they board their flight. Finally, mean variance theory assumes that frames do not affect choice, prospect theory emphasizes that frames greatly affect choices. Consider an experiment that illuminates the features of prospect theory. Imagine that you face a choice of a pair such that one is A or B and the other is C or D, where A a sure gain of $24,000 B a 25 percent chance to gain $100,000 and a 75 percent chance to gain nothing C a sure loss of $75,000 D a 75 percent chance to lose $100,000 and a 25 percent chance to lose nothing. The evidence shows that more people chose A than B, and more people chose D than C. This common pattern poses a puzzle for mean variance theory, since people are predicted to be risk-averse in mean variance theory, never risk-seeking. While the choice of A over B is consistent with riskaversion, the choice of D over C is not. Note that the $25,000 expected gain of B (25 percent of a $100,000 gain) is greater than the sure $24,000 gain of A, so the common choice of A over B is consistent with risk-aversion. However, the election of D over C indicates that such people behave as if they are risk-seeking. Note that the expected $75,000 loss of D (75 percent of a $100,000 loss) is equal to the sure $75,000 loss of C, but D is riskier than C since it can impose a $100,000 loss. One reason for this analysis is that choices depend on frames. For example, the common choice of the A and D combination is stochastically dominated by the less frequently chosen B and C. Note that A and D offers a 25 percent chance to win $24,000 and a 75 percent chance to lose $76,000, while B and C offers a 25 percent chance to win more, $25,000, and
7 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page 71 4 / Behavioral Portfolios 71 a 75 percent chance to lose less, $75,000. Even though the instructions indicate that the choice among A, B, C, and D is concurrent, people tend to frame the choice into one from A and B and one from C or D, overlooking the link between the two choices and its relationship to the final levels of their wealth. Indeed, researchers found that when people are asked directly whether they would prefer winning $25,000 instead of winning $24,000, and losing $75,000 instead of losing $76,000, all chose the more favorable amounts, the amounts associated with the stochastically dominating B and C. In general then, in the context of portfolio construction, these findings imply that people do not choose well-diversified portfolios. In particular, people ignore covariance among security returns, and therefore choose stochastically dominated portfolios that lie below the mean variance efficient frontier. Behavioral Portfolio Theory A central feature in behavioral portfolio theory is the observation that investors view their portfolios not as a whole, as prescribed by mean variance portfolio theory, but as distinct layers in a pyramid of assets, where layers are associated with particular goals and where attitudes towards risk vary across layers. 1 One layer might be a downside protection layer, designed to protect investors from being poor. Another might be an upside potential layer, designed to give investors a chance at being rich. Investors might behave as if they hate risk in the downside protection layer while they behave as if they love risk in the upside potential layer. These are normal, familiar investors, investors who buy insurance policies while they also buy lottery tickets. In the simple version of behavioral portfolio theory, investors divide their money into two layers, a downside protection layer designed to protect them from poverty, and an upside potential layer designed to make them rich. Investors in the complete version of the theory divide their money into many layers corresponding to many different goals and levels of aspiration. Seeing behavioral portfolios as pyramids of assets is consistent with investment advice. Consider, for example, the investment pyramid that the Putnam mutual fund company (Putnam Investments, 2003) prescribes to its investors, presented in Figure 4-5. Income funds in the Putnam Pyramid are [d]esigned to provide a regular stream of income, and their place is at the bottom of the pyramid, while growth funds are [d]esigned to help build the value of your investment over time, and their place is at the top of the pyramid. This structure is also reflected in the upside potential and downside protection layers of core and satellite and risk budget portfolios. Pietranico and Riepe (2002) describe Core and Explore, Schwab s version of core and satellite, as comprised of a well-diversified core, serving as the
8 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page Meir Statman Growth Increasing risk and potential reward Blend Value Income Figure 4-5. Portfolios as layered pyramids. Source: Putnam Investments (2003). foundation layer of the portfolio and a less diversified layer of explore, seeking returns that are higher than the overall market, which entails greater risk. Similarly, Waring et al. (2000) describe portfolios where the risk budget is allocated to active funds while the safe budget is allocated to index funds. One might argue that while portfolios are described as layered pyramids consistent with behavioral portfolio theory, investors consider them as a whole, consistent with mean variance portfolio theory. But such argument is not supported by the evidence. Consider, for example, Question 13 in Fidelity Investments (2003) Asset Allocation Planner: If you could increase your chances of improving your returns by taking more risk, would you: 1. Be willing to take a lot more risk with all your money. 2. Be willing to take a lot more risk with some of your money. 3. Be willing to take a little more risk with all your money. 4. Be willing to take a little more risk with some of your money. 5. Be unlikely to take much more risk. Answers 1 and 3 make sense within the mean variance framework. In that framework, only the risk of the overall portfolio (i.e. all your money) matters. But answers 2 and 4 make no sense within the mean variance framework. This is because answers 2 and 4 segment the portfolio into layers where investors are willing to take a lot more risk or a little more risk with some of their money. Mean variance investors have single attitude toward
9 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page 73 4 / Behavioral Portfolios 73 risk, not a set of attitudes, layer by layer. In contrast, behavioral investors have many attitudes toward risk, layer by layer. So they might be willing to take a lot more risk with some of their money. Mean variance investors construct the mean variance efficient frontier by identifying portfolios with highest level of expected wealth for each level of standard deviation. The counterpart in behavioral portfolio theory to standard deviation in mean variance portfolio theory is the probability that wealth might fall below the aspiration level. Behavioral investors construct the behavioral efficient frontier by identifying the portfolios with the highest level of expected wealth for each probability that wealth would fall below the aspiration level (see Figures 4-6a and b). Mean variance portfolio theory posts that security returns follow a normal distribution, but that behavioral investors prefer securities with non-normal, asymmetric distributions that combine downside protection, in the form of a floor, with upside potential (Shefrin and Statman, 2000). Call options combine a floor with upside potential and so do bonds, stocks, (a) Expected return (%) 0.25 M N L Standard deviation 1 (b) Expected return (%) M L P Probability (wealth < aspiration level) Figure 4-6. (a) Mean variance and (b) behavioral efficient frontiers with $1.00 in assets and a $1.30 aspiration level. Source: Shefrin and Statman (2000).
10 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page Meir Statman and lottery tickets. Indeed, limited liability is an important feature that endears stocks to the hearts of behavioral investors. Behavioral investors choose deep in the money securities, such as Treasury bills, bonds and equity participation notes for the downside protection layers of their portfolios, in the money securities, such as stock mutual funds and individual stocks, for the middle layers of their portfolios and out of the money securities, such as call options and lottery tickets for the upside potential layers of the portfolios. While securities with normal distributions are not optimal for behavioral investors, they do provide a comparison between behavioral efficient frontiers and mean variance efficient frontiers when investors can choose only from securities with normal distributors (Shefrin and Statman, 2000). Behavioral investors, like mean variance investors, tend to consider their portfolio as a single account, so behavioral investors with low aspirations are likely to choose diversified portfolios, while those with high aspirations are likely to choose undiversified portfolios. Moreover, behavioral investors with high aspirations are likely to choose lottery-like securities, shunned by mean variance investors. Consider an investor with $1 and a (high) aspiration level of $1.30 who can choose security L, security M, or combinations of both. Security L is lottery-like, with an expected return of 2 percent and a standard deviation of 90 percent, while security M has an expected return of 20 percent and a standard deviation of 30 percent. 2 The mean variance efficient frontier extends from M to N in Figure 4-6(a), where N is the portfolio with the lowest standard deviation. Mean variance investors with no aversion to risk place their entire $1 in security M, while risk-averse mean variance investors divide their $1 between securities M and L along the M N efficient frontier. Yet, a portfolio composed entirely of lottery-like L is not on the mean variance efficient frontier, because it is dominated by other portfolios, including the one composed entirely of M. In contrast, a portfolio composed entirely of L is on the efficient frontier of a high-aspiration behavioral investor, since it provides the highest probability of reaching the aspiration level. The behavioral efficient frontier extends from L to P and includes M. The probability of reaching the aspiration level in P is higher than the probability in M, but M offers higher expected returns than P (see Figure 4-6b). 3 Behavioral investors who choose lottery-like L do so because they have high aspirations, not because they like risk. In that, they are similar to the Dubins and Savage (1976) investor who is in a casino with $1,000 and desperately aspires to have $10,000 by morning. The optimal portfolio for this investor is concentrated in a single bet, one that offers a chance, however small, of winning $10,000. An investor who diversifies his bets does worse than one who concentrates them in a single bet since he has virtually no chance of winning the aspired $10,000.
11 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page 75 4 / Behavioral Portfolios 75 While the single account version of behavioral portfolio theory is useful for comparisons with mean variance portfolio theory, investors in practice think of their portfolio not as a single account but as a pyramid of many accounts or many layers. In the two-layer version of behavioral portfolio theory, investors divide their portfolio money into a downside protection layer with a low aspiration level, designed to protect them from poverty, and an upside potential layer with a high aspiration level, designed for a shot at riches. A diversified portfolio of cash, bonds, and stock mutual funds comes close to an optimal sub-portfolio for the downside protection layer while an undiversified portfolio consisting of one or a few stocks comes close to an optimal sub-portfolio for the upside potential layer. The overall portfolio where the two layers are added together is likely to contain large proportions of one or few stocks. Consider an investor who is pulled equally strongly by the desire for downside protection and the desire for upside potential so he divides his $2 into two equal parts, $1 for the downside protection layer and $1 for the upside potential layer. Imagine that the aspiration level of that investor for the downside protection layer is $1, a level that is low relative to the $1.20 aspiration level for the upside potential layer. Imagine that there were two securities, X and Y, both of which have normally distributed returns. X has an expected return of 16 percent with a standard deviation of 20 percent, while Y has an expected return of 10 percent with a standard deviation of 15 percent. The correlation between the returns of X and Y is zero. Now we contemplate behavioral efficient frontier for the downside protection layer. A portfolio consisting entirely of Y offers an expected wealth of $1.10 along with a 25.2 percent probability that the aspiration level will be missed. Portfolio Y is not on the efficient frontier since it is dominated by portfolio Z. Portfolio Z, combining $0.50 of X with $0.50 of Y, has the lowest probability of missing the aspiration level, 14.9 percent, along with higher expected wealth, $1.13. Figure 4-7 shows the efficient frontier for the downside protection layer, extending from Z to X. Next, consider the efficient frontier for the upside potential layer. Figure 4-8 shows that the frontier consists of a concentrated bet on security X. Any other portfolio is inferior since it provides a lower expected wealth with a higher probability of missing the aspiration level. In sum, behavioral investors allocate their assets to upside potential and downside layers of a portfolio pyramid. While they place great importance on the upside potential layers of their portfolios, they do not necessarily neglect the downside protection ones. Indeed, behavioral investors form their portfolios as if they fill the downside protection layers of their portfolios first, before they move on to fill the upside potential ones. Many gamblers do the same. Gambling in America (1976) reported that gamblers have more substantial downside protection layers than non-gamblers and the proportions of both stock owners and bond owners among gamblers is
12 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page Meir Statman X Expected wealth Z 1.1 Y Probability (wealth < aspiration level) Figure 4-7. Behavioral efficient frontier for an investor with $1.00 in the downside protection layer and a $1.00 aspiration level. Source: Shefrin and Statman (2000) X 1.15 Expected wealth Y Probability (wealth < aspiration level) Figure 4-8. Behavioral efficient frontier for an investor with $1.00 in the upside potential layer and a $1.20 aspiration level. Source : Shefrin and Statman (2000). higher than their proportions among non-gamblers. Moreover, gamblers were more likely to have their future secured by social security and pension plans than non-gamblers and hold 60 percent more assets... (1976: 66).
13 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page 77 Public Policy 4 / Behavioral Portfolios 77 Mean variance theory offers portfolio descriptions that investors do not follow. By contrast, behavioral portfolio theory offers descriptions of pyramid portfolios that are much closer to reality. Investors want downside protection layers in their portfolios but they want upside potential layers as well. But what should we prescribe as the right balance between upside potential and downside protection? And what should we prescribe as the right balance between freedom and paternalism? One problem is that people have begun suing advisers and employers who let them concentrate their portfolios in stocks. Mitchell and Utkus (2003) illustrate the tradeoff between upside potential and downside protection in their discussion of the consequences of holding company stocks in DC plans. They simulated three hypothetical portfolios, one invested entirely in company stock, one invested entirely in a stock market index, and one divided equally between company stock and stock market index. They found that portfolios concentrated in company stock offer great upside potential, with a 5 percent chance of accumulating more than $4.1 million after 30 years. In contrast, the corresponding accumulation figure for the stock market portfolio is only $2.7 million. Yet, while the stock market index offered lesser upside potential, it offered greater downside protection. The lowest accumulation with the stock market index was $281,000 while the lowest accumulation with company stock was $66,000. Should financial advisers, employers, and government entities let investors concentrate their portfolios in company stock? Should they let investors concentrate their portfolios in stocks? Public policy has always fluctuated between the desire for upside potential and the desire for downside protection, just it has fluctuated between the desire for freedom and the desire for paternalism. People opt for freedom when times are good and upside potential seems near, but evidence suggests they clamor for paternalism after it turns out that they have sacrificed downside protection for dashed hopes of upside potential. This pattern has long historical roots in the United States. In the early 1900s, as investors pressed for blue sky laws when their reach for upside potential brought loss of downside protection. The value of Kansas farmland more than doubled during the period and this new prosperity attracted investment promoters. A commentator at the time noted (Bateman, 1973: 766): the state of Kansas, most wonderfully prolific and rich in farming products, had a large proportion of agriculturists not versed in ordinary business methods. The State was the happy hunting ground of promoters of fraudulent enterprises; in fact, their frauds became so barefaced that it was stated that they would sell building lots in the blue sky in fee simple. Metonymically they became known as the blue-sky merchants and the legislation intended to prevent their frauds was called Blue Sky Law.
14 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page Meir Statman The 1911 Kansas Blue Sky law empowered state officials to deny registration to any security judged unfair, unjust, or inequitable to any class of investors. By 1933, every state except Nevada had adopted blue sky laws. Carosso (1970: 164) noted the paternalistic nature of these laws, Never before had a state sought to prevent its citizens from making unwise decisions. The paternalistic blue sky framework competed with the freedombased disclosure framework as the basis for the 1933 and 1934 acts that established the SEC and underlie the regulation of investors and investments to this day. Congressman Huston Thompson took the leadership role in crafting a new securities law in 1933, shortly after President Roosevelt s inauguration and his draft combined blue sky features with disclosure ones. Several argued against the blue sky features in Thompson s bill. Rayburn told Roosevelt that the Thompson bill was too stringent and Roosevelt quickly agreed, for two reasons: First, he wished to enact a securities bill rapidly and was concerned that a debate would delay enactment; and second, he felt most strongly about the disclosure principle. Disclosure is the principle that underlies the acts of 1933 and 1934, but paternalism has not been vanquished, reflected in Social Security. Social Security was created to satisfy a need for downside protection. Moss (2002) wrote that the Social Security Act represented a sweeping response to the problem of worker insecurity and quoted President Roosevelt s words: We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. (2002: 180) Clearly, the pendulum has begun to swing from freedom to paternalism, as the boom of the late 1990s has given way to the bust of the early 2000s. Further, it appears that the pendulum is swinging from concern over upside potential to downside protection. Conclusion Over a half century ago, Friedman and Savage (1948) described people as they are, people who hope that a lottery ticket will lift them into a higher social class, while they trust that an insurance policy will protect them from falling into a lower social class. While Friedman and Savage assigned equal roles to lottery tickets and insurance policies in their insurance lottery framework, research by Markowitz took us to a fork in the road (1952a,b). On one hand, Markowitz extended Friedman and Savage s framework, assigning to lotteries a role as big as the role of insurance. On the other, the mean variance framework, Markowitz (1952b) assigned to lotteries no
15 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page 79 4 / Behavioral Portfolios 79 role at all. While the mean variance road is the better-traveled road the insurance lottery road is the better road. Here, we have shown how Kahneman and Tversky (1979) developed the thinking into prospect theory, while Shefrin and Statman (2000) pressed further to develop behavioral portfolio theory. While some researchers and policymakers may lament the fact that people are attracted to lotteries, others might accept it and help people strike a balance between hope for riches and protection from poverty. Finding the balance is the challenge as governments offer to both Social Security and lotteries, corporations offer their employees both mutual funds and company stocks, and the financial services industry offers its investors both bond funds and Internet stocks. Notes 1 Friedman and Savage (1948), Markowitz (1952b), and Kahneman and Tversky (1979) form the basis of Shefrin and Statman s (2000) behavioral portfolio theory. 2 The argument would be similar if the expected return of L were negative, as is the case of a lottery. 3 Behavioral investors do not borrow to leverage their investments. Mean variance investors without the ability to borrow might concentrate their portfolios in one security, but it would not be lottery-like stock L. References Bateman, Hal State Securities Registration: An Unresolved Dilemma and a Suggestion for the Federal Securities Code. Southwestern Law Journal 27: Carosso, Vincent Investment Banking in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Commission on the Review of National Policy Toward Gambling Gambling in America. Washington, October. Dubins, Lester E. and Leonard J. Savage How to Gamble If You Must: Inequalities for Stochastic Processes, 2nd Ed. New York, Dover: McGraw Hill. Ellenberger, J. S. and Ellen Mahar Legislative History of the Securities Act of 1973 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Vols South Hackensack, NJ: Law Librarians Society of Washington, DC, Fred B. Rothman and Co. Fidelity Investments Asset Allocation Planner Questionnaire. Friedman, Milton and Leonard J. Savage The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk. Journal of Political Economy 56(4): Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Making Under Risk. Econometrica 47(2): Kritzman, Mark, Asset Allocation for Individual Investors. Financial Analyst Journal January February: Lopes, Lola, Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 20: Loss, Louis and James Seligman Securities Regulation. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
16 Utkas-04.qxd 27/5/04 2:58 PM Page Meir Statman Markowitz, Harry. 1952a. Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance 7(1): b. The Utility of Wealth. Journal of Political Economy 60(2): Mitchell, Olivia and Stephen Utkus The Role of Company Stock in Defined Contribution Plans. In The Pension Challenge: Risk Transfers and Retirement Income Security, eds. Olivia Mitchell and Kent Smetters. Oxford: Oxford University Press: Moss, David A When All Else Fails: Government as the Ultimate Risk Manager. Cambridge: Havard University Press. Pietranico, Paul and Mark Riepe Core & Explore Details. Charles Schwab and Company. Putnam Investments Shefrin, Hersh and Meir Statman Behavioral Portfolio Theory. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 35(2): Von Neumann, John and Oscar Morgenstern Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Waring, Barton, Duane Whitney, John Pirone, and Charles Castille Optimizing Manager Structure and Budgeting Manager Risk. The Journal of Portfolio Management 26(3):
Mental-accounting portfolio
SANJIV DAS is a professor of finance at the Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara University, in Santa Clara, CA. srdas@scu.edu HARRY MARKOWITZ is a professor of finance at the Rady School of Management,
The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems
978 0 19 957334 9 Mitchell-Main-drv Mitchell (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) iii of 343 July 21, 2009 20:23 The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems EDITED BY Olivia S. Mitchell and Gary Anderson 1 978
The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems
978 0 19 957334 9 Mitchell-Main-drv Mitchell (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) iii of 343 July 21, 2009 20:23 The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems EDITED BY Olivia S. Mitchell and Gary Anderson 1 978
How much diversification is enough?
How much diversification is enough? by Meir Statman Glenn Klimek Professor of Finance Santa Clara University Leavey School of Business Santa Clara, CA 95053 mstatman@scu.edu September 2002 I thank Roger
The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems
978 0 19 957334 9 Mitchell-Main-drv Mitchell (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) iii of 343 July 21, 2009 20:23 The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems EDITED BY Olivia S. Mitchell and Gary Anderson 1 978
Lecture 3: Prospect Theory, Framing, and Mental Accounting. Expected Utility Theory. The key features are as follows:
Topics Lecture 3: Prospect Theory, Framing, and Mental Accounting Expected Utility Theory Violations of EUT Prospect Theory Framing Mental Accounting Application of Prospect Theory, Framing, and Mental
The Pension Challenge
The Pension Challenge Risk Transfers and Retirement Income Security EDITED BY Oliva S. Mitchell and Kent Smetters 1 fm 2003/6/4 page iii #3 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press
Prize-linked savings mechanism in the portfolio selection framework
Business and Economic Horizons Prize-linked savings mechanism in the portfolio selection framework Peer-reviewed and Open access journal ISSN: 1804-5006 www.academicpublishingplatforms.com The primary
ARE LOSS AVERSION AFFECT THE INVESTMENT DECISION OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF THAILAND S EMPLOYEES?
ARE LOSS AVERSION AFFECT THE INVESTMENT DECISION OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF THAILAND S EMPLOYEES? by San Phuachan Doctor of Business Administration Program, School of Business, University of the Thai Chamber
The Diversification Puzzle
Financial Analysts Journal Volume 60 Number 4 2004, CFA Institute The Diversification Puzzle Meir Statman The levels of diversification in U.S. investors equity portfolios present a puzzle. Today s optimal
Payoff Scale Effects and Risk Preference Under Real and Hypothetical Conditions
Payoff Scale Effects and Risk Preference Under Real and Hypothetical Conditions Susan K. Laury and Charles A. Holt Prepared for the Handbook of Experimental Economics Results February 2002 I. Introduction
The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems
978 0 19 957334 9 Mitchell-Main-drv Mitchell (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) iii of 343 July 21, 2009 20:23 The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems EDITED BY Olivia S. Mitchell and Gary Anderson 1 978
Introduction. Two main characteristics: Editing Evaluation. The use of an editing phase Outcomes as difference respect to a reference point 2
Prospect theory 1 Introduction Kahneman and Tversky (1979) Kahneman and Tversky (1992) cumulative prospect theory It is classified as nonconventional theory It is perhaps the most well-known of alternative
The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems
978 0 19 957334 9 Mitchell-Main-drv Mitchell (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) iii of 343 July 21, 2009 20:23 The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems EDITED BY Olivia S. Mitchell and Gary Anderson 1 978
Economics and Portfolio Strategy
Economics and Portfolio Strategy Peter L. Bernstein, Inc. 575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006 New York, N.Y. 10022 Phone: 212 421 8385 FAX: 212 421 8537 October 15, 2004 SKEW YOU, SAY THE BEHAVIORALISTS 1 By
Pension Design and Structure New Lessons from Behavioral Finance
Pension Design and Structure New Lessons from Behavioral Finance EDITED BY Olivia S. Mitchell and Stephen P. Utkus 1 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of
BEEM109 Experimental Economics and Finance
University of Exeter Recap Last class we looked at the axioms of expected utility, which defined a rational agent as proposed by von Neumann and Morgenstern. We then proceeded to look at empirical evidence
Behavioral Finance: The Collision of Finance and Psychology
Behavioral Finance: The Collision of Finance and Psychology Behavioral Finance: The Collision of Finance and Psychology Presented by: Dr. Joel M. DiCicco, CPA Florida Atlantic University Order of Presentation
Portfolio Optimization in an Upside Potential and Downside Risk Framework.
Portfolio Optimization in an Upside Potential and Downside Risk Framework. Denisa Cumova University of Technology, Chemnitz Department of Financial Management and Banking Chemnitz, GERMANY denisacumova@gmx.net
Rational theories of finance tell us how people should behave and often do not reflect reality.
FINC3023 Behavioral Finance TOPIC 1: Expected Utility Rational theories of finance tell us how people should behave and often do not reflect reality. A normative theory based on rational utility maximizers
CONVENTIONAL FINANCE, PROSPECT THEORY, AND MARKET EFFICIENCY
CONVENTIONAL FINANCE, PROSPECT THEORY, AND MARKET EFFICIENCY PART ± I CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 Foundations of Finance I: Expected Utility Theory Foundations of Finance II: Asset Pricing, Market Efficiency,
Unit 4.3: Uncertainty
Unit 4.: Uncertainty Michael Malcolm June 8, 20 Up until now, we have been considering consumer choice problems where the consumer chooses over outcomes that are known. However, many choices in economics
The Pension Challenge
The Pension Challenge Risk Transfers and Retirement Income Security EDITED BY Oliva S. Mitchell and Kent Smetters 1 fm 2003/6/4 page iii #3 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press
On the Empirical Relevance of St. Petersburg Lotteries. James C. Cox, Vjollca Sadiraj, and Bodo Vogt
On the Empirical Relevance of St. Petersburg Lotteries James C. Cox, Vjollca Sadiraj, and Bodo Vogt Experimental Economics Center Working Paper 2008-05 Georgia State University On the Empirical Relevance
Equation Chapter 1 Section 1 A Primer on Quantitative Risk Measures
Equation Chapter 1 Section 1 A rimer on Quantitative Risk Measures aul D. Kaplan, h.d., CFA Quantitative Research Director Morningstar Europe, Ltd. London, UK 25 April 2011 Ever since Harry Markowitz s
Does Portfolio Rebalancing Help Investors Avoid Common Mistakes?
Does Portfolio Rebalancing Help Investors Avoid Common Mistakes? Steven L. Beach Assistant Professor of Finance Department of Accounting, Finance, and Business Law College of Business and Economics Radford
Behavioral Economics (Lecture 1)
14.127 Behavioral Economics (Lecture 1) Xavier Gabaix February 5, 2003 1 Overview Instructor: Xavier Gabaix Time 4-6:45/7pm, with 10 minute break. Requirements: 3 problem sets and Term paper due September
ECON 312: MICROECONOMICS II Lecture 11: W/C 25 th April 2016 Uncertainty and Risk Dr Ebo Turkson
ECON 312: MICROECONOMICS II Lecture 11: W/C 25 th April 2016 Uncertainty and Risk Dr Ebo Turkson Chapter 17 Uncertainty Topics Degree of Risk. Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Avoiding Risk. Investing
Risk aversion, Under-diversification, and the Role of Recent Outcomes
Risk aversion, Under-diversification, and the Role of Recent Outcomes Tal Shavit a, Uri Ben Zion a, Ido Erev b, Ernan Haruvy c a Department of Economics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel.
Risk Tolerance Profile
Risk Tolerance Profile Client Name: Date: This questionnaire is used by Financial Pathfinders, LLC to help determine the amount of risk you are willing to take in your investments. The answers are used
Ambiguity Aversion. Mark Dean. Lecture Notes for Spring 2015 Behavioral Economics - Brown University
Ambiguity Aversion Mark Dean Lecture Notes for Spring 2015 Behavioral Economics - Brown University 1 Subjective Expected Utility So far, we have been considering the roulette wheel world of objective probabilities:
Journal Of Financial And Strategic Decisions Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 1997 CORPORATE MANAGERS RISKY BEHAVIOR: RISK TAKING OR AVOIDING?
Journal Of Financial And Strategic Decisions Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 1997 CORPORATE MANAGERS RISKY BEHAVIOR: RISK TAKING OR AVOIDING? Kathryn Sullivan* Abstract This study reports on five experiments that
Decision Theory. Refail N. Kasimbeyli
Decision Theory Refail N. Kasimbeyli Chapter 3 3 Utility Theory 3.1 Single-attribute utility 3.2 Interpreting utility functions 3.3 Utility functions for non-monetary attributes 3.4 The axioms of utility
Leverage Aversion, Efficient Frontiers, and the Efficient Region*
Posted SSRN 08/31/01 Last Revised 10/15/01 Leverage Aversion, Efficient Frontiers, and the Efficient Region* Bruce I. Jacobs and Kenneth N. Levy * Previously entitled Leverage Aversion and Portfolio Optimality:
Annuity Markets and Pension Reform
Annuity Markets and Pension Reform This book treats two vital but neglected public policy issues: how should distributions from individual accounts be regulated, and how can the market for private annuities
Senior Lecturer, Accounting and Finance Department, School of Business, Kenyatta University
FINANCIAL LITERACY AND ITS IMPACT ON INVESTMENT DECISIONS IN NIGERIA: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 1 Malgit Amos Akims, 2 Ambrose Jagongo 1 Accounting and Finance Department, School of Business, Kenyatta
A study on the significance of game theory in mergers & acquisitions pricing
2016; 2(6): 47-53 ISSN Print: 2394-7500 ISSN Online: 2394-5869 Impact Factor: 5.2 IJAR 2016; 2(6): 47-53 www.allresearchjournal.com Received: 11-04-2016 Accepted: 12-05-2016 Yonus Ahmad Dar PhD Scholar
SPECULATIVE ACTIVITIES IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AND ITS RELATION TO THE REAL ECONOMY
SPECULATIVE ACTIVITIES IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AND ITS RELATION TO THE REAL ECONOMY Jana DRUTAROVSKÁ Bratislava, Slovakia jana.drutarovska@gmail.com Abstract: Nowadays, financial markets are criticized
RESEARCH GROUP ADDRESSING INVESTMENT GOALS USING ASSET ALLOCATION
M A Y 2 0 0 3 STRATEGIC INVESTMENT RESEARCH GROUP ADDRESSING INVESTMENT GOALS USING ASSET ALLOCATION T ABLE OF CONTENTS ADDRESSING INVESTMENT GOALS USING ASSET ALLOCATION 1 RISK LIES AT THE HEART OF ASSET
Markets for Financial Capital
Markets for Financial Capital 427 Markets for Financial Capital Having seen how markets for physical capital work, let us turn to the examination of markets for financial capital. As we discussed, firms
Choice under risk and uncertainty
Choice under risk and uncertainty Introduction Up until now, we have thought of the objects that our decision makers are choosing as being physical items However, we can also think of cases where the outcomes
Risk Attitude towards Mandatory Retirement Protection in Hong Kong: Why Are Risky Investments More Attractive?
Asian Social Science; Vol. 10, No. 6; 2014 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Risk Attitude towards Mandatory Retirement Protection in Hong Kong: Why
The Pension Challenge
The Pension Challenge Risk Transfers and Retirement Income Security EDITED BY Oliva S. Mitchell and Kent Smetters 1 fm 2003/6/4 page iii #3 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press
What are the additional assumptions that must be satisfied for Rabin s theorem to hold?
Exam ECON 4260, Spring 2013 Suggested answers to Problems 1, 2 and 4 Problem 1 (counts 10%) Rabin s theorem shows that if a person is risk averse in a small gamble, then it follows as a logical consequence
SHOULD YOU CARRY A MORTGAGE INTO RETIREMENT?
July 2009, Number 9-15 SHOULD YOU CARRY A MORTGAGE INTO RETIREMENT? By Anthony Webb* Introduction Although it remains the goal of many households to repay their mortgage by retirement, an increasing proportion
The Economist March 2, Rules v. Discretion
Rules v. Discretion This brief in our series on the modern classics of economics considers whether economic policy should be left to the discretion of governments or conducted according to binding rules.
Comment Does the economics of moral hazard need to be revisited? A comment on the paper by John Nyman
Journal of Health Economics 20 (2001) 283 288 Comment Does the economics of moral hazard need to be revisited? A comment on the paper by John Nyman Åke Blomqvist Department of Economics, University of
Discussion: What Have We Learned from the New Suite of Risk Management Programs of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008?
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 42,3(August 2010):537 541 Ó 2010 Southern Agricultural Economics Association Discussion: What Have We Learned from the New Suite of Risk Management Programs
Developing Time Horizons for Use in Portfolio Analysis
Vol. 44, No. 3 March 2007 Developing Time Horizons for Use in Portfolio Analysis by Kevin C. Kaufhold 2007 International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans WEB EXCLUSIVES This article provides a time-referenced
Using Lessons from Behavioral Finance for Better Retirement Plan Design
Plan advisor tools Using Lessons from Behavioral Finance for Better Retirement Plan Design Today s employees bear more responsibility for determining how to fund their retirement than employees in the
Investment in Information Security Measures: A Behavioral Investigation
Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) WISP 2015 Proceedings Pre-ICIS Workshop on Information Security and Privacy (SIGSEC) Winter 12-13-2015 Investment in Information Security
The Effect of Pride and Regret on Investors' Trading Behavior
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Wharton Research Scholars Wharton School May 2007 The Effect of Pride and Regret on Investors' Trading Behavior Samuel Sung University of Pennsylvania Follow
IS ADVERSE SELECTION IN THE ANNUITY MARKET A BIG PROBLEM?
JANUARY 2006, NUMBER 40 IS ADVERSE SELECTION IN THE ANNUITY MARKET A BIG PROBLEM? BY ANTHONY WEBB * Introduction An annuity provides an individual or a household with insurance against living too long.
The Fundamentals of Hedge Fund Management
The Fundamentals of Hedge Fund Management Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons is the oldest independent publishing company in the United States. With offices in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia,
China A-Shares: Too Big to Ignore
RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT China A-Shares: Too Big to Ignore China A-shares make up 34% of the total China investment opportunity set yet are often missing from a typical institutional investor s portfolio due
How do we cope with uncertainty?
Topic 3: Choice under uncertainty (K&R Ch. 6) In 1965, a Frenchman named Raffray thought that he had found a great deal: He would pay a 90-year-old woman $500 a month until she died, then move into her
Does Portfolio Theory Work During Financial Crises?
Does Portfolio Theory Work During Financial Crises? Harry M. Markowitz, Mark T. Hebner, Mary E. Brunson It is sometimes said that portfolio theory fails during financial crises because: All asset classes
The Financial Literacy Initiative. Annamaria Lusardi (Dartmouth College andnber)
1 The Financial Literacy Initiative Annamaria Lusardi (Dartmouth College andnber) Research to Date My research to date has focused on financial literacy and financial education programs. Over the last
Human Development in India
Human Development in India Challenges for a Society in Transition Sonalde B. Desai Amaresh Dubey Brij Lal Joshi Mitali Sen Abusaleh Shariff Reeve Vanneman 1 1 YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New
The month of the year effect explained by prospect theory on Polish Stock Exchange
The month of the year effect explained by prospect theory on Polish Stock Exchange Renata Dudzińska-Baryła and Ewa Michalska 1 Abstract The month of the year anomaly is one of the most important calendar
Currently throughout the world most public
FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR NOTIONAL DEFINED CONTRIBUTION SCHEMES JOHN B. WILLIAMSON* Currently throughout the world most public old-age pension schemes are based on the Pay-As-You-Go Defined Benefit (PAYGO DB)
ANASH EQUILIBRIUM of a strategic game is an action profile in which every. Strategy Equilibrium
Draft chapter from An introduction to game theory by Martin J. Osborne. Version: 2002/7/23. Martin.Osborne@utoronto.ca http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne Copyright 1995 2002 by Martin J. Osborne.
Prospects for the Social Safety Net for Future Low Income Seniors
Prospects for the Social Safety Net for Future Low Income Seniors Marilyn Moon American Institutes for Research Presented at Forgotten Americans: The Future of Support for Older Low-Income Adults National
An Introduction to Resampled Efficiency
by Richard O. Michaud New Frontier Advisors Newsletter 3 rd quarter, 2002 Abstract Resampled Efficiency provides the solution to using uncertain information in portfolio optimization. 2 The proper purpose
Modern Portfolio Theory
66 Trusts & Trustees, Vol. 15, No. 2, April 2009 Modern Portfolio Theory Ian Shipway* Abstract All investors, be they private individuals, trustees or professionals are faced with an extraordinary range
Obtaining a fair arbitration outcome
Law, Probability and Risk Advance Access published March 16, 2011 Law, Probability and Risk Page 1 of 9 doi:10.1093/lpr/mgr003 Obtaining a fair arbitration outcome TRISTAN BARNETT School of Mathematics
Reference Wealth Effects in Sequential Choice
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17:27 47 (1998) 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers Reference Wealth Effects in Sequential Choice WILLIAM S. NEILSON Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College
Methodology document. December Individual goals differ greatly. We continually assess returns.
Methodology document. Objective based asset allocation. Individual goals differ greatly. We incorporate behavioural finance. Our allocations are not set-and-forget. We continually assess returns. An important
HANDBOOK OF EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS RESULTS
HANDBOOK OF EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS RESULTS Edited by CHARLES R. PLOTT California Institute of Technology and VERNON L. SMITH Chapman University NORTH-HOLLAND AMSTERDAM NEW YORK OXFORD TOKYO North-Holland
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Fall Module I
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Fall 2018 Module I The consumers Decision making under certainty (PR 3.1-3.4) Decision making under uncertainty
Assessing The Financial Literacy Level Among Women in India: An Empirical Study
Assessing The Financial Literacy Level Among Women in India: An Empirical Study Bernadette D Silva *, Stephen D Silva ** and Roshni Subodhkumar Bhuptani *** Abstract Financial Inclusion cannot be achieved
How Do You Measure Which Retirement Income Strategy Is Best?
How Do You Measure Which Retirement Income Strategy Is Best? April 19, 2016 by Michael Kitces Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those
Assumptions for Statutory Money Purchase Illustrations
Assumptions for Statutory Money Purchase Illustrations NEST s response to the FRC s consultation 30 August 2012 Summary NEST welcomes the Financial Reporting Council s consultation on Statutory Money Purchase
Comment on Target Date Fund Rules to SEC/ DOL
Comment on Target Date Fund Rules to SEC/ DOL submitted this comment to the SEC and DOL in response to File No. S7-12-10. June 4, 2014 The False Promise of Target Date Funds as QDIA Investments The Department
MBF2263 Portfolio Management. Lecture 8: Risk and Return in Capital Markets
MBF2263 Portfolio Management Lecture 8: Risk and Return in Capital Markets 1. A First Look at Risk and Return We begin our look at risk and return by illustrating how the risk premium affects investor
INVEST WITH A GLOBAL LEADER
INVEST WITH A GLOBAL LEADER Since 1947, our firm has been dedicated to delivering exceptional asset management for our institutional, retail, and high-net-worth clients. By bringing together multiple,
QUANTITATIVE INVESTMENT ANALYSIS WORKBOOK
QUANTITATIVE INVESTMENT ANALYSIS WORKBOOK Second Edition Richard A. DeFusco, CFA Dennis W. McLeavey, CFA Jerald E. Pinto, CFA David E. Runkle, CFA John Wiley & Sons, Inc. QUANTITATIVE INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
Personal Retirement Accounts and Social Security Reform
Personal Retirement Accounts and Social Security Reform Olivia S. Mitchell PRC WP 2002-7 January 2002 Pension Research Council Working Paper Pension Research Council The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Chapter 8. Portfolio Selection. Learning Objectives. INVESTMENTS: Analysis and Management Second Canadian Edition
INVESTMENTS: Analysis and Management Second Canadian Edition W. Sean Cleary Charles P. Jones Chapter 8 Portfolio Selection Learning Objectives State three steps involved in building a portfolio. Apply
Traditional Economic View
Views of Risk Traditional Economic View Thűnen[1826] Profit is in part payment for assuming risk Hawley [1907] Risk-taking essential for an entrepreneur Knight [1921] Uncertainty non-quantitative Risk:
INVESTMENT PRINCIPLES INFORMATION SHEET FOR INVESTORS HOW TO DIVERSIFY
INVESTMENT PRINCIPLES INFORMATION SHEET FOR INVESTORS HOW TO DIVERSIFY IMPORTANT NOTICE The term financial advisor is used here in a general and generic way to refer to any duly authorized person who works
The Future of Retirement Why family matters
The Future of Retirement Why family matters India Fact Sheet 2 The Future of Retirement Introduction HSBC s The Future of Retirement programme is a leading independent study into global retirement trends.
Economics of Money, Banking, and Fin. Markets, 10e
Economics of Money, Banking, and Fin. Markets, 10e (Mishkin) Chapter 7 The Stock Market, the Theory of Rational Expectations, and the Efficient Market Hypothesis 7.1 Computing the Price of Common Stock
Stocks and Bonds over the Life Cycle
Stocks and Bonds over the Life Cycle Steven Davis University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business and Rajnish Mehra University of California, Santa Barbara and University of Chicago, Graduate School
The volatility paradox: When winners lose and losers win
By: Bob Collie, FIA, Chief Research Strategist, Americas Institutional JULY 2011 The volatility paradox: When winners lose and losers win Consider the following hypothetical investment opportunity, a strategy
Pension Design and Structure New Lessons from Behavioral Finance
Utkas-Fm.qxd 27/5/04 3:24 PM Page iii Pension Design and Structure New Lessons from Behavioral Finance EDITED BY Olivia S. Mitchell and Stephen P. Utkus 1 Utkas-Fm.qxd 27/5/04 3:24 PM Page iv 1 Great Clarendon
Measuring and Utilizing Corporate Risk Tolerance to Improve Investment Decision Making
Measuring and Utilizing Corporate Risk Tolerance to Improve Investment Decision Making Michael R. Walls Division of Economics and Business Colorado School of Mines mwalls@mines.edu January 1, 2005 (Under
Answers to chapter 3 review questions
Answers to chapter 3 review questions 3.1 Explain why the indifference curves in a probability triangle diagram are straight lines if preferences satisfy expected utility theory. The expected utility of
Yale ICF Working Paper No First Draft: February 21, 1992 This Draft: June 29, Safety First Portfolio Insurance
Yale ICF Working Paper No. 08 11 First Draft: February 21, 1992 This Draft: June 29, 1992 Safety First Portfolio Insurance William N. Goetzmann, International Center for Finance, Yale School of Management,
The relevance and the limits of the Arrow-Lind Theorem. Luc Baumstark University of Lyon. Christian Gollier Toulouse School of Economics.
The relevance and the limits of the Arrow-Lind Theorem Luc Baumstark University of Lyon Christian Gollier Toulouse School of Economics July 2013 1. Introduction When an investment project yields socio-economic
World Scientific Handbook in Financial Economics Series Vol. 4 HANDBOOK OF FINANCIAL. Editors. Leonard C MacLean
World Scientific Handbook in Financial Economics Series Vol. 4 HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING on Editors Leonard C MacLean Dalhousie University, Canada (Emeritus) William T Ziemba
The Best Solution to Wage Inequality: Incentive Versus Minimum Wage
WRIT: GSW Journal of First-Year Writing Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 6 8-20-2018 The Best Solution to Wage Inequality: Incentive Versus Minimum Wage Tony Gossett Bowling Green State University, gossett@bgsu.edu
Chapter 23: Choice under Risk
Chapter 23: Choice under Risk 23.1: Introduction We consider in this chapter optimal behaviour in conditions of risk. By this we mean that, when the individual takes a decision, he or she does not know
USING PARTICIPANT DATA TO IMPROVE 401(k) ASSET ALLOCATION
September 2012, Number 12-17 RETIREMENT RESEARCH USING PARTICIPANT DATA TO IMPROVE 401(k) ASSET ALLOCATION By Zhenyu Li and Anthony Webb* Introduction Economic theory says that participants in 401(k) plans
THE CODING OF OUTCOMES IN TAXPAYERS REPORTING DECISIONS. A. Schepanski The University of Iowa
THE CODING OF OUTCOMES IN TAXPAYERS REPORTING DECISIONS A. Schepanski The University of Iowa May 2001 The author thanks Teri Shearer and the participants of The University of Iowa Judgment and Decision-Making
Dr. Harry Markowitz The Father of Modern Portfolio Theory and the Insight of Behavioral Finance
Special Report Part 2 of 2 Dr. Harry Markowitz The Father of Modern Portfolio Theory and the Insight of Behavioral Finance A Special Interview with SkyView s Advisory Board Member Dr. Harry Markowitz,
Behavioral Economics. Student Presentations. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Student Presentations Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow Chapter 26, Prospect Theory The main idea or concept of this chapter: Diminishing Sensitivity When people have different amounts of wealth,
The concept of risk is fundamental in the social sciences. Risk appears in numerous guises,
Risk Nov. 10, 2006 Geoffrey Poitras Professor of Finance Faculty of Business Administration Simon Fraser University Burnaby BC CANADA The concept of risk is fundamental in the social sciences. Risk appears
On the evolution of probability-weighting function and its impact on gambling
Edith Cowan University Research Online ECU Publications Pre. 2011 2001 On the evolution of probability-weighting function and its impact on gambling Steven Li Yun Hsing Cheung Li, S., & Cheung, Y. (2001).
Restructuring Retirement Risks
Blitzstein et al. / Restructuring Retirement Risks Blitzstein-00-Prelims Page Proof page iii 28.2.2006 11:01pm Restructuring Retirement Risks Edited by David Blitzstein, Olivia S. Mitchell, and Stephen